[aur-general] scm naming conventions
Hello everyone, This is my first time posting to this list, though I've been lurking for a while. I have a thought, and forgive me if this would be better addressed on a different mailing list; I wasn't quite sure which to use, and I was already subscribed to this one so I chose it. right now for packages for development versions we use *-svn if the project uses svn, *-cvs if they use cvs, *-git if they use git, etc. I feel a better solution would be to use a single suffix for all development versions, say *-scm (source code management). This is already done in Exherbo. This would be advantageous because we wouldn't have to change the package name on the occasion that upstream switches tools, and it would make things more clear from a user perspective; right now if there are two scm packages in aur, you might have to do some digging to figure out which is current (though granted this isn't usually very difficult.) Of course, a policy change like this would require changing the names of a lot of packages in the short term. I'm curious to hear other people's thoughts on this. -Ian
On Mon, Jun 1, 2009 at 21:22, Ian Denhardt <zerathidune@gmail.com> wrote:
I'm curious to hear other people's thoughts on this.
-Ian
Dunno, it doesn't seem really needed. SCM changes are not common anyway, I doubt that it's worth it to change. I seem to recall a proposal to change them to -devel a while back, but I don't clearly remember... Either way, it didn't go through
I think: good idea, but not worth the bother to switch. Good Idea: - Yeah, it's a bit more clear, and very unlikely that a single project would use two different ones - Nice that packages don't need renaming on upstream changes Not Worth It: - *lots* of packages renamed - Future confusion when people who've seen a -git once upload a -git without knowing the -scm policy - Requires further monitoring/adminship - -git/-svn/-bzr or whatever actually gives you more information than -scm. More information is better? - Lots of effort to do my "If Implemented" section too If Implemented (I'm not recommending this option): - Conversion would be hassle, perhaps best done by making a frontpage notice, and having a script (supervised script?) do the heavy lifting on the server side - Avoid most future problems by having AUR Web refuse things that look like they're a -git / -svn or whatever, and ask the user to make it -scm Anyway, so I think it can be done right, but isn't a sufficient enough gain to really warrant the effort.
participants (3)
-
Andrei Thorp
-
Daenyth Blank
-
Ian Denhardt